陳惠芬Chen, Hui-Fen陳梅萱Chen, Mei-Hsuan2022-06-082021-10-272022-06-082021https://etds.lib.ntnu.edu.tw/thesis/detail/cc7f09ebcce4fc5935d5919dade6448b/http://rportal.lib.ntnu.edu.tw/handle/20.500.12235/116549本論文旨在透過國史館在臺復館後的組織與修史工作變遷，考察戰後臺灣國家、政黨與史學的關係，以及該機構在國家治理體系中所扮演的角色。本研究發現，作為官方修史機構的國史館，其與國民黨黨史會的關係，自中華民國在中國大陸時期，即相當密切。1957年國史館在臺復館後，館、會除了繼續維持合作夥伴關係，在戒嚴時期的黨國體制下，官方修史活動多由黨史會主導，國史館扮演協助角色，國史修纂也以國民黨黨史為依歸，並與中華人民共和國爭奪中國之正統，以維護國民黨政權的統治合法性。1980年代中期以後，由於臺灣民主化與政治變遷，國史館與黨史會的關係開始受到民進黨立委的質疑，〈檔案法〉的制定過程更引發國史館的定位問題與存廢爭議。嗣後，國史館嘗試提升學術地位，逐步調整工作環境與相關業務，修纂成果的質與量皆有明顯改善，但仍無法跳脫中國本位的框架。2000年政黨輪替後，館長改由學者擔任。除了修纂國史，國史館還新增職掌，成為兼具歷史研究、檔案典藏與總統副總統文物展示的特殊政府機構。民進黨執政時期，在新館長主導下，「臺灣史」逐漸躋升為國史的一環，國史館的學術地位也大幅提升，並取代黨史會，成為官方修史活動的主導機構。2008年國民黨重返執政後，「中華民國史」的地位再度獲得確立。作為政府機構的國史館，其國史修纂活動，除了各館長學術專業領域的差異，更是深刻地受到執政黨政治理念的影響，而呈現不同的風貌。The purpose of this thesis is to examine the relationship between the nation, political parties, and historiography in post-war Taiwan and the role of the Academia Historica in the national governance system through the changes in the organization and the compiling of history after its restoration in Taiwan.The study finds that as an official historical institution, the Academia Historica has had a close relationship with the Party’s History Council of Kuomintang (KMT) since the days of the ROC in China. Under Dang Guo during the martial law period, the compiling of official history activities are mostly led by the Party’s History Council of Kuomintang, with the Academia Historica playing a supporting role. After the restoration of the Academia Historica in Taiwan in 1957, the Academia Historica and the Party’s History Council of Kuomintang continued to maintain a cooperative partnership. National history is also based on the history of the Kuomintang, with the aim of competing with the People's Republic of China for the legitimacy of the KMT regime in China. After the mid-1980s, due to the democratization and political changes in Taiwan, the relationship between the Academia Historica and the Party’s History Council of Kuomintang began to be questioned by the legislators of the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP). The process of enacting the “Archives Act” has led to controversies over the positioning of the Academia Historica and its retention or abolition. The Academia Historica then attempted to raise its academic status and gradually adjust its working environment and related operations. The quality and quantity of the compiling results have improved significantly, but it is still impossible to break away from the China-based framework.After the change of political party in 2000, the DPP government came to power and the director of the Academia Historica was replaced by an academic. In addition to compiling national history, the agency has added new responsibilities, becoming a special government institution that combines historical research, archival collections, and the display of Presidential and Vice Presidential Artifacts. With the new director at the helm, the “Taiwan History” has gradually become a part of national history, and the academic status of the Academia Historica has been greatly enhanced. It has replaced the Party’s History Council as the leading organization for official history compiling activities.After the KMT returned to power in 2008, the status of the “History of the Republic of China” was reaffirmed. As a government institution, the Academia Historica is still profoundly influenced by the agenda of the ruling party and the differences in the academic expertise of its directors, and thus presents a different picture of its national history compilation activities.國史館黨史會官方修史正統合法性Academia HistoricaParty's History CouncilOfficial Compiling HistoryOrthodoxLegitimacy學術論文